Hydro Plant vs. Solar Plant

scooch74 · January 5, 2003, 15:21

I'm hoping you more established Civ players can help me better understand which plant to build. As I understand it, both add 50% to your factory output and each replaces any other plant you may have built. So the Hydro Plant and Solar Plant are redundant, correct? Meaning I would only have to build one or the other because neither would be cumulative with the other. Is my logic correct on all this? Neither produces pollution so I see no advantage to one over the other. If all my thinking is correct then building the Hoover Dam is the way to go and forego the Solar Plant altogether while waiting to build Nuclear Plants and Manufacturing Plants. So am I correct or have I missed something?

Theseus · January 5, 2003, 15:23

Correct.

The distinction is that in the absence of the Hoover Dam, Hydro Plants can only be built by cities on rivers.

CerberusIV · January 5, 2003, 15:52

The point is that, after you have built factories, there is no one clear way to go with power plants.

I usually build coal plants in a few cities, specifically so those cities can build ToE, Hoover and possibly military academy and armies quickly. Those cities will have a lot of pollution and so need workers on cleanup duty.

Hoover is the way to go if you possibly can. Once you have it you can sell off the coal plants and reduce pollution in those cities. You then only need power plants for cities not on the same continent as Hoover. The situation for such cities is coal (with pollution) or hydro (but only if there is a river). Once you get ecology you can build a solar plant in any city. Useful if you have a fairly major city on an offshore island.

Nuclear increases shield output more than the other power plants but requires fresh water so you can't build them just anywhere. They also have a maintenance cost so if you get Hoover you really have to want the extra output to build one.

Datajack Franit · January 6, 2003, 14:11

Try avoiding nuclear as they can blow up during wars

joncnunn · January 6, 2003, 14:43

Actually, there is a very clear way to go with power plants: Hoover Dam for free Hydro Plants everywhere on the contienant. This is a GW that pays for itself.

If I can't peacefully acquire a suitable site for the Hoover Dam in the ancient era, I will be fighting as many wars as needed to acquire such a site.

As for cities on the smaller landmasses with no rivers, Solar Plant is the way to go if it's worth placing any kind of power plant in them.

joncnunn · January 6, 2003, 14:45

Also, any cities that can build nuclear plants can also build Hyrdo Plants much earlier.

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Try avoiding nuclear as they can blow up during wars

Catt · January 6, 2003, 16:19

The only time I build solar plants is if I'm on a map with no rivers (or no suitable rivers) and very few fresh water lakes. Without rivers, I build coal and suffer the pollution. If the game goes into the Modern Age and looks like it will stay there for a while (i.e., no diplo or military victory close by) I may build a few solar plants to replace coal plants, but in rare circumstances.

The solar plant's one significant use, for me, is as a pre-build for spaceship parts.

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Also, any cities that can build nuclear plants can also build Hyrdo Plants much earlier.

Actually, there is a small difference. Hydro plants need a river within the city radius; nuclear plants need only fresh water - so a river or a lake. On many "dry" maps, rivers will be few and far inbetween, but small (1 to 3 tile lakes) might be common enough to enable nuclear plants throughout much of the empire even though hydro plants are nearly unheard of.

Catt